Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Confused how the DOJ is getting away with it's rules.

  1. #1
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047

    Confused how the DOJ is getting away with it's rules.

    175.60(2)(b) The department may not impose conditions, limitations, or requirements that are not expressly provided for in this section on the issuance, scope, effect, or content of a license.
    Looking up the definition of section, it is the decimal portion. So.... they can't screw with any requirements in 175.60. So.... how do they do 50 participants? It isn't expressly provided?

  2. #2
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823
    This is just purely speculation on my part.

    Nothing was really said about the number of people at other classes, such as at your church, until shortly after the annual meeting and class at Serb Hall. I think some of the trainers who saw how many people were there got a little miffed because that was money that didn't go into THEIR pocket and started to call the DOJ.

    Again speculation on my part.
    Wisconsin Carry Member
    My Castle Doctrine Law

    Don't wish ill upon your enemy......plan it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by XDFDE45 View Post
    This is just purely speculation on my part.

    Nothing was really said about the number of people at other classes, such as at your church, until shortly after the annual meeting and class at Serb Hall. I think some of the trainers who saw how many people were there got a little miffed because that was money that didn't go into THEIR pocket and started to call the DOJ.

    Again speculation on my part.
    I understand that, I guess my question is how is it that they are allowed to do that when the law is quite clear.

  4. #4
    Regular Member XDFDE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    823
    I guess the law only applies to us peasants and not the DOJ. Wouldn't be the first time a government agency decided to make up their own rules, just look at the ATF . Maybe we should be asking the legislature the same question, why is the DOJ not following the law that they wrote and passed? And why does the DOJ feel they can impose rules that are against the will of the legislature?
    Wisconsin Carry Member
    My Castle Doctrine Law

    Don't wish ill upon your enemy......plan it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Looking up the definition of section, it is the decimal portion. So.... they can't screw with any requirements in 175.60. So.... how do they do 50 participants? It isn't expressly provided?
    Paul. Send this inquirey to Glenn Grothman. I needed to ask the DOJ a question, However they do not directly serve us ( why not) but the Governor and the legislature. But Glenn was able to get me the answer. Can I OC in a GFSZ with a permit. The answer from the DOJ as an affermative yes. So they will answer indirectly to you.

  6. #6
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Paul. Send this inquirey to Glenn Grothman. I needed to ask the DOJ a question, However they do not directly serve us ( why not) but the Governor and the legislature. But Glenn was able to get me the answer. Can I OC in a GFSZ with a permit. The answer from the DOJ as an affermative yes. So they will answer indirectly to you.
    But it's the DOJ that is violating the law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    But it's the DOJ that is violating the law.
    I know. Therefore if you get Glenn's attention he may inquire about it and get you an answer and find an answer on how ,make DOJ comply etc...

  8. #8
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    But it's the DOJ that is violating the law.
    So what is the penalty for having more than 50 people in a class?

    And how can they enforce it against an applicant?

  9. #9
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by lockman
    So what is the penalty for having more than 50 people in a class?
    And how can they enforce it against an applicant?
    Good questions.
    (Though it's a 50 students to 1 instructor ratio, not a limit on how many people in a class.)
    Unless one of their agents (or a spy ) sees how many people are in a class, notes the date & instructor's name, & somehow alerts the DOJ data entry clerks to watch for & refuse those certificates of training, I don't see any way they could have any influence.
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    DOJ Tells Us

    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    Looking up the definition of section, it is the decimal portion. So.... they can't screw with any requirements in 175.60. So.... how do they do 50 participants? It isn't expressly provided?
    If you read the DOJ proposed rulemaking, they indicate where they think their authority comes from. Incidentally, did you attend the rulemaking hearings? According to DOJ, only one person commented on the 1:50 ratio requirement so I thought it might be you. If you look at Jus 17.03 Definitions......

    (7) “Firearms safety or training course” means a course of instructor-led training that provides a certificate or affidavit of successful completion satisfying the content requirements of s. Jus 17.05(2)(a) and that, at a minimum, instructs on, and practices the student’s comprehension of, firearm safety rules; safe firearm and ammunition use, handling, transport, and storage; legally permissible possession, transportation, and use of firearms, including use of deadly force; and techniques for avoiding and controlling violent confrontations.

    (8) “Instructor-led” means training that is conducted face-to-face individually or in groups with an instructor-student ratio that does not exceed 50 students per instructor and in which instructors actively guide students through each lesson, answer questions, facilitate discussion, and provide feedback on activities and/or assignments. Learner-led or self-directed learning—the delivery of learning experiences to independent learners who lead and manage their own experience, delivered via web pages, multimedia presentations, computer applications, online presentations, or similar methods—is not instructor-led.


    I don't think any of these details are in the statute. Why quibble about the ratio with so many more burdensome requirements?

  11. #11
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    I don't think any of these details are in the statute. Why quibble about the ratio with so many more burdensome requirements?
    True, however, I can meet the rest of the requirements more easily than the 50:1 ratio.

    So.... once again, we need to put on a full court press to make these new permanent rules not take effect.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    542
    Quote Originally Posted by paul@paul-fisher.com View Post
    True, however, I can meet the rest of the requirements more easily than the 50:1 ratio.

    So.... once again, we need to put on a full court press to make these new permanent rules not take effect.
    At the DOJ rules hearing in Pewaukee, that I attended, I asked to clarify that the "50 to 1 ..." in the proposed permanent rules, was a ratio per instructor, not a 50 student limit per class. The DOJ staff person running that meeting agreed that it was a ratio, that if there were 7 instructors at the class up to 350 students could attend. I did not hear any other comments with regard to the 50 to 1 ratio, at that hearing.

    Regarding how this would be enforced, when the course instructor signs the certificate or affidavit affirming that the course meets the current requirements of the DOJ, (which include the 50 to 1 ratio), If the ratio had been exceeded for that particular class, the instructor would be falsely affirming on the certificate. That will get the instructor in trouble, and I think it would make those certificates invalid.
    Last edited by E6chevron; 11-14-2012 at 06:20 PM.
    Wis. CCL #5x Springfield XDM 3.8 Compact .40 S&W, Utah CFP

  13. #13
    Regular Member paul@paul-fisher.com's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    4,047
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    At the DOJ rules hearing in Pewaukee, that I attended, I asked to clarify that the "50 to 1 ..." in the proposed permanent rules, was a ratio per instructor, not a 50 student limit per class. The DOJ staff person running that meeting agreed that it was a ratio, that if there were 7 instructors at the class up to 350 students could attend. I did not hear any other comments with regard to the 50 to 1 ratio, at that hearing.

    I understand but finding 4 instructors to just kinda hang out on a Saturday is difficult. Why waste instructors? They could be someplace else having their own classes.

  14. #14
    State Researcher lockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Elgin, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    1,202
    Quote Originally Posted by E6chevron View Post
    At the DOJ rules hearing in Pewaukee, that I attended, I asked to clarify that the "50 to 1 ..." in the proposed permanent rules, was a ratio per instructor, not a 50 student limit per class. The DOJ staff person running that meeting agreed that it was a ratio, that if there were 7 instructors at the class up to 350 students could attend. I did not hear any other comments with regard to the 50 to 1 ratio, at that hearing.

    Regarding how this would be enforced, when the course instructor signs the certificate or affidavit affirming that the course meets the current requirements of the DOJ, (which include the 50 to 1 ratio), If the ratio had been exceeded for that particular class, the instructor would be falsely affirming on the certificate. That will get the instructor in trouble, and I think it would make those certificates invalid.
    Limit class size to 50, then the same instructor can hold 7 or 8 classes concurrently at the same location. Problem solved on the certification.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •